Official 'Twins Aren't Doing Stuff' Thread

[Alex]

Can't say I agree with that part. Most everyone thought the rotation would be bad, but looking at the specific examples of individuals gives you a better picture of what happened.

 

I don't disagree, going forward, but we're talking about predictions here and the predictions were mostly about the rotation as a whole, even if individual predictions were off, the overall issue is that the status of the Twins rotation and variables were such that there would be limited success regardless. Consider that the rotation was even healthy.

[snepp]

What I want to know is who's going to take PJ Walter's starts now that he's signed with KC.

 

 

I'm sure they can scrounge something up out of their richly embarrassing...errr, embarrassingly rich depth of #6 starters.

 

[Twins Twerp]

Early Judgement: Moby Dick is about a guy named Ishmael.

[TheLeviathan]

His point seems pretty clear. 2013 was bad, but no one that I know predicted it was going to be *that* bad with Correia, of all people, as the only guy to outperform expectations.

 

I remember many here questioning whether any improvement was made at all. This isn't a hindsight thing.

[Riverbrian]

I actually think the pitching was better. Not good enough but it was improved in my opinion.

 

Stats will say differently I know but I believe we were "in" more games last year than we were in 2012. The offense failed to take advantage when the opportunity presented itself.

 

We still... Really need pitching... More than anything... But it was better than the stats indicated...

[Kwak]

Early judgment? Yes. The Twins identified that they have significant concerns with respect to their rotation--but San Francisco has signed two starting pitchers so far. It appears SF got "in-front" of their "concerns" about their rotation.

 

Detroit had "concerns" also. Apparently they prefer to return Cabrera to 1B and start a young guy who is better-suited for defense at 3B and reduce payroll (perhaps only temporarily) to permit the expenditure for an improved bullpen. They are "in-front" of their concerns. Texas also had concerns--apparently they believe they need more offense, and hope to get much of the improvement from Fielder--and maybe another player. Texas is "in-front" of their concerns. This should not be construed as a criticism of the Twins but rather, as the thread contends, "business as usual".

 

The annual meetings, held in December, should be illuminating. If the Twins make an announcement on or before the Tuesday after these meetings (which I think would be December 10) then we can conclude that business has changed (for the Twins). But if there isn't an announcement of significance, well, I think we can conclude that things haven't changed. So, we wait--but just a bit--say until December 10, to see if "Things Haven't Changed in Twins Territory".

[Trevor0333]

It was pretty bad not even in hindsight counting on Pelfrey coming back 9 months after TJ to be an factor in the rotation & Worley who had shown promise but had a year full of elbow problems. Everyone knew they were going to be iffy at best health wise.

[Oldgoat_MN]

So, which is it...

a.) you guys think the only players ever added to the organization should be the very best FAs, or...

b.) you're just rolling with easy targets that have nothing to do with whether or not they'll sign any decent FAs this year?

 

My assumption is leaning towards b.) and I don't quite get it outside of endless snark for the sake of it.

 

Pardon me Jay, but have you just started following this team?

 

Looking at only 'The very best free agents' would show that the Twins have never been involved when TR was the GM. We ask only that he look to sign someone who could likely be above MLB average. Instead the Twins are linked to Nolasco & Arroyo. These are two fine pitchers, but neither can realistically be expected to be at all exceptional. Both, if they have good years, could measure all the way up to 'average MLB pitcher'.

 

After 3 years of over 95 losses, some of us who have supported the Twins for decades are getting frustrated. Tough to be me, right?

 

But that is why I hang out here. I love baseball. I love the Twins. I am usually an optimist, kind of to the extreme.

 

At this point, however, I cannot imagine the Twins ever having a really good team (like, competitive even into the playoffs) for as long as TR is GM. He cannot get himself to pay what it takes to get better.

 

I have bled Twins all my life. I have never had so little faith in what the future holds. Sano & Buxton, et al, cannot win games with no pitching. As near as I can tell, we will never have enough quality pitching until TR retires, at which point I expect to be dead.

 

So call it an easy target if you like. See how if feels in 20 years.

[Hugh Morris]

I don't feel the difference is overly significant, no. You're talking about a motley bunch of below average guys. I may not have predicted exactly those results, but I (and most others) accurately predicted little improvement.

 

i have a hard time addressing the rest because you are mixing descriptors like competent, not exciting, warty, etc to the point that I don't know exactly what your stance is. If the point was that it was revisionist to suggest that pre 2013 there were major reasons to doubt an improvement....I call shenanigans.

 

I didn't think I was that unclear, I apologize if it came across as overly confusing. To begin by clarifying my stance: It was reasonable to assume the 2013 rotation would show substantial improvement over 2012-and that the collected pitchers had the ability to pitch the team to somewhere in the realm of league-average. With that being said, "average" would take a couple of lucky breaks-as the pitchers who were assembled were not great and frequently were not good (hence "warts", "not exciting", etc). I do, however, make a distinction between "not good" and "absolutely horrible"

 

The thought of substantial improvement in the rotation was far from unreasonable and had support within analytics. The most readily available projection set (Steamer) had the Twins improving their rotation ERA by roughly 15% (even with some laughable HR/FB numbers and a few other quirks I found questionable). That improvement would have made them the 6th most improved rotation in the majors.

 

I'm fully aware that there were people who expected this rotation to be poor. What I consider revisionism is the idea that people, through reasoned and sober analysis, expected the rotation to be as bad as it was. After 2 90+ loss seasons, the lack of any glamorous/sexy FA signings and the departure of favorites like Liriano, it'd be like me bragging about my meteorological skills for predicting that my recent planned outdoor afternoon date was forced inside by the rain. I'm a pessimist-of course I predicted it would rain. There was little reason to expect "Good" out of the Twins last year.

 

Again, if you (or anyone else) can show your work on having the 3 acquisitions and Diamond performing as poorly as they did, I'd be interested in seeing it. As it stands though, I have a tough time believing that anybody got to this level of ineptitude by the rotation without a variety of baseless assumptions that wound up being accurate.

 

And my general point stems from that distinction.... There is no reason to suspect that Duensing, Swarzak and to a lesser extent Johnson are anything besides BAD MLB starters. One is 29 without having received meaningful MLB time and the others are bad enough as starters that they couldn't grasp consistent playing time even while sharing a roster with the rollercoaster of revulsion the rotation has been over the last 2 years.

 

If your grading scale doesn't allow for two different grades (perhaps "Below Average" and "Awful") and a distinction between a group consisting of [PJ Walters, Brian Duensing, Anthony Swarzak, Nick Blackburn, Kris Johnson and the performances of Jason Marquis and Carl Pavano] and a group consisting of the projected 2013 performances of [Correia, Worley, Pelfrey and Diamond], then I understand why we seem to be on opposite ends and talking past each other. If that's the case, then we're having a semantics discussion rather than a baseball one and I apologize for dragging it out

[Hugh Morris]

Short version: any rotation plan that includes the words "Hendricks-Deduno battle" is by definition one that is counting on AAA suspects.

You could describe them as AAA suspects. Or you could describe them as a recent top 10 organizational prospect who showed glimpses of promise (the duel with King Felix in Seattle) but was generally inconsistent in his age 23 season and a journeyman AAA oddity who appeared in his first MLB season to have finally gained some control of his unique pitch and had used it to dominate the WBC in the winter/spring. I suppose it's a matter of how you'd like to frame it, but I think your method was somewhat oversimplified. I'm also curious if you'd use the description of floatsam/jetsam in your post to describe Gibson, who had a fairly similar debut season to Hendriks-despite being older.

 

Long version: Correia, three guys coming off some form of elbow surgery, and ???. That was the rotation plan going into 2013.

 

And before you tell me about expectations for the three surgery guys, note that by far the most experienced one had a career ERA+ of 92, in the NL, missed the previous season almost completely, and was aggressively pushing his rehab timeline. The next most experienced one was coming off a career high in IP (133), a 96 ERA+, a season shut down in August, and was just traded -- with a recent Top 100 prospect! -- for Ben Revere. The least-experienced one was the only one who was either above-average OR pitched a full season in 2012, and we all know his fluke credentials from that year (4.6 K/9).

 

Then there's Correia, the so-called "innings eater" who had averaged 167 IP and an ERA+ of 83 since becoming a full-time starter.

 

Again on framing: "coming off" and "some form" are both used here to cover all manner of sins- Pelfrey had Tommy John in April. Worley had bone chips removed in September and Diamond had bone chips removed in December.

 

One of these is an existential threat to a pitching career and the reason Pelfrey was available on a 1 year deal. The other is a fairy common procedure (with a fairly minimal rehab timeline) that many movement-dependent pitchers (a category that Worley/Diamond fall into) report easing/removing the pain that makes it difficult to throw their arsenal properly-often leading to both short and long term improvement. But I absolutely grant you that the projected weakest member of the 4 was either Correia or Pelfrey, depending on your feelings on Tommy John.

 

With regards to Diamond and Worley-I'd have found Diamond's strand rate as a better indicator of the flukiness of his season (Which should serve as a warning for Correia after this year), but we agree regression was likely. a 2pt rise in ERA and 1.5 in FIP seems harder to justify, though. Worley followed up his rookie season (where he finished 3rd in RoY voting) with a sophomore campaign in which he was a touch below league average while dealing with injuries that tend not to be chronic. I don't know that relatively minor elbow surgery warrants the levels of pessimism necessary to project his 2013 as being below average-even with K numbers inflated due to called 3rd strikes.

 

Mind you, these guys individually were not necessarily bad acquisitions. But together they do not make a competent rotation, and TR has very clearly counted on some marginal starting pitchers for regular roles in his rotation planning the past two seasons.

My recollection of 2012 involved Liriano (young and had a legitimate Ace-like season in 2010, contract year), the mediocre to terrible Marquis, Pavano (coming off a 2 WAR season, contract year), the rookie year of Hendriks who'd done nothing so far besides dominating the minors despite being at age-appropriate levels, and the awful Nick Blackburn... which is to say we agree-though I'd only have called Marquis and Blackburn marginal from that list.

 

Don't sell yourself short -- Deduno had a 92 ERA+ in 2012, same as Pelfrey's career mark and better than Correia's (as a starter). The Twins had five recently successful Major League starters!

 

That kind of distinction is almost meaningless. Did Philip Humber count as a "recently successful Major League starter" for the Astros? Erik Bedard? Did Kevin Slowey for the Marlins?

 

TR built his rotation with low-upside guys with very shaky track records of health and effectiveness -- and he still had one clear opening for a AAA guy to begin the season!

 

{Comment related to discussion with Different User redacted- Super embarrassed about crossing the two} The career ERA+s of Deduno after 15 starts and Pelfrey after nearly 150 are hardly comparable.

 

Regarding recently successful, the distinction is almost meaningless if you widely broaden the definition of both terms

Worley: ERA+ of 127 in his rookie year (2011), RoY Consideration, 96 ERA+ in sophmore campaign (2012)

Diamond: ERA+ of 116 in 2012. Decent minor league track record prior but poor cup of coffee in 2011.

Humber: 4 years of abysmal MLB and MiLB stats. Showed hints of maybe getting it in KC in 2010. 3 amazing months in 2011 followed by 3 awful months to end 2011(total ERA+: 116) and a 66 ERA+ in 2012.

Slowey: 61 ERA+ in 2011. Injury and a horrible stint in the minors in 2012. One >100 ERA+ season in his career.

 

I do apologize, I mistook Correia's SDP seasons for each other in my head. He has been solidly below average for a considerable time before the Twins picked him up.

[TheLeviathan]

It was reasonable to assume the 2013 rotation would show substantial improvement over 2012

 

And it was plenty reasonable to assume it wasn't. No one needs to revise history to go back to last March and think that group wasn't going to improve much of anything. And plenty of people said as much and were right, the rest of your argument is pretty moot after that. (I for one, thought the rotation had "meager" upgrades and any improvement would basically be because 2012 was so bad that the odds were luck would help them be better. Turns out the upgrades were as meager as I thought)

 

It's a strange argument to suggest that people who made reasonable arguments for why guys wouldn't succeed (Diamond regressing, Pelfrey needing time to recover, Correia being what he was, plus a lack of viable alternatives) and ended up being accurate is somehow unreasonable, drunk, crazy talk. This is a team that swapped Baker, Pavano, and Liriano for Worley and his shoulder, Pelfrey and his TJ, and Correia. And you think one had to be unreasonable to think they may not improve? I get that we have a few people on TD that like to label anything pessimistic as unreasonable, but that's simply not fair.

 

They were reasonable arguments - pessimistic for sure, but nonetheless reasonable - and they turned out right. You claiming that anyone is "revising history" to suggest they predicted that is just plain inaccurate.

[Hugh Morris]

And again, this is why I feel as though we're talking past each other. There is plenty of reason to believe many or all of them would perform somewhat poorly. The issue I have is not with the idea that people predicted these acquisitions wouldn't be good. I've agreed that Diamond was due for regression, that Pelfrey was trying to make it back from Tommy John on a tight schedule and that Worley had an inflated Krate due to swinging strikes

My issue is not in the direction of performance, but in the magnitude

 

The Twins had to replace 162 starts. I agree that replacing the 28 combined starts of Liriano and Pavano and the 27 of Diamond are where regression was likely (Napkin Math has that at around 4.5-4.75 for a ERA). But that's not even a third of the starts made on the season. Where else did the starts come from?

 

42 of those came from the quartet of Blackburn-Duensing-Swarzak-Marquis. The combined 7.55 ERA of those starts help to illustrate what happens when 3 people who have no business in a major league starting rotation and one person who just underwent immense personal tragedy wind up with the ball.

 

Deduno and Hendricks combined for another 31 starts with a 4.44 and 5.59 ERA respectively. I'm not sure why either of them was a likely regression candidate (Deduno I could see up until the WBC). The remainder of the starts came from absolute nonprospects like De Vries or Walters and total scratch tickets like Vazquez.

 

What I'm trying to say is this:

I can see reasonable arguments for why Correia would put up something much closer to a 5 than what he did (making him an almost exact replacement for Liriano despite drastic style differences). I can understand why someone might suggest that Pelfrey's season will look like Pavano's 6.00 ERA-though expecting worse than that is suspect. I can see why someone might say Scott Diamond would wind up settling in at a higher ERA just from returning to the mean. And once those starts have been replaced-we come to the remainder. The ones thrown by has beens (Blackie), never wases (most of the rest) and guys who are clearly better suited for the bullpen in Duensing and Swarzak.

 

And here's where my point of contention lies: Even when assuming that Correia and Pelfrey might be as bad as Liriano and Pavano were in 2012 (no easy feat), even when assuming that Scott Diamond will not anchor the rotation while keeping his ERA under 4.5 again (despite a solid xFIP and a strikeout rate that had dropped substantially from where it was in the minors), and even while assuming that Deduno's WBC experience was a flash in the pan while Liam wouldn't develop at all and have as bad a season as he did the year prior... the rotation would be in line for a marked improvement because Blackburn-Marquis-Duensing and Swarzak were simply that awful. There was nothing in Worley's track record to suggest he would implode TO THE EXTENT THAT HE DID. There's nothing in Gibson's track record to suggest that he would scuffle as hard as he did when he was called up (I recall many on this board complaining that he was wasting innings in the minors because he was clearly ready. FWIW, I agree).

 

All of this started because I disagreed with the idea that anyone predicted Worley, Correia and Pelfrey would combine to rival the performances put on by Duensing, Swarzak, Marquis and Blackburn the year before. And I stand by my point. I do not believe anyone predicted that the new acquisitions would combine for a 7+ ERA-and anyone who did predict that did so out of a general pessimism rather than an analysis of the situation.

 

For as warty and bad as Pelfrey, Correia and Worley may have been, all three had demonstrated at least some aptitude for starting pitching at a major league level, and had no signs entering the season that they'd lost that. The same simply cannot be said after the performances of Duensing, Blackburn and Swarzak in the rotation during 2012. I'll leave Marquis out of that last statement because I can't imagine trying to prepare for a season and keeping your mind right while going through the despair and helplessness he must have felt-I don't put the performance on his abilities, but it was an awful performance. Tremendously so.

 

 

For what it's worth, "sober" was synonymous with clear/levelheaded rather than antonymous with "drunk"-I had hoped that the discussion of the rainy day made that clear. Apologies if any were offended.

also-TheLeviathan; clear out some PM space or send me one! Got something I'd like to cover in private real quick!

[Otto von Ballpark]

The thought of substantial improvement in the rotation was far from unreasonable and had support within analytics. The most readily available projection set (Steamer) had the Twins improving their rotation ERA by roughly 15% (even with some laughable HR/FB numbers and a few other quirks I found questionable). That improvement would have made them the 6th most improved rotation in the majors.

 

I looked up Steamer for 2013:

 

http://steamerprojections.com/blog/downloads/

 

Steamer projected EVERY Twins starter (start percentage greater than zero, including Walters, Hernandez, etc.) to have an ERA between 4.30 and 4.92, with the exception of Esmerling Vazquez, whom it projected to have a whopping 5.11 ERA. I hope the Twins were using more than simple regression to the mean to evaluate their starting pitchers.

 

You dismiss Humber and Slowey, but Steamer gave them virtually identical projections to those it gave the top Twins starters (including GS, IP, ERA, and "reliability").

 

In fact, running some quick totals on that spreadsheet, Steamer projected the AL team starter ERAs to range from 3.78 to 4.61 (this is calculated on projected IP, so it doesn't include marginal guys like Esmerling Vazquez). Actual range last year? 3.44 to 5.26. Guess who was projected to finish last at 4.61? The Twins. Guess who actually finished last at 5.26? The Twins.

[jay]

Guess who was projected to finish last at 4.61? The Twins. Guess who actually finished last at 5.26? The Twins.

 

I think you guys are saying the same thing.

 

No one here has said they were going to be good. We all thought they were going to be bad, but I think they were even worse than some of us were expecting -- including Steamer, as you've highlighted here.

[jay]

Pardon me Jay, but have you just started following this team?

 

After 3 years of over 95 losses, some of us who have supported the Twins for decades are getting frustrated. Tough to be me, right?

 

But that is why I hang out here. I love baseball. I love the Twins. I am usually an optimist, kind of to the extreme.

 

So call it an easy target if you like. See how if feels in 20 years.

 

Thanks for asking. I'm in the decades fan camp as well. That still doesn't make me think it is necessary to ridicule any and every move the team makes just because it wasn't signing [insert your favorite FA here]. You're more than entitled to be bearish on our prospects for success (while claiming to be an optimist). Personally, I'll never understand the joy in being a cynical, defeatist fan.

[TheLeviathan]

42 of those came from the quartet of Blackburn-Duensing-Swarzak-Marquis.

 

The problem is you comp Pelfrey and Pavano and say they are a wash when Pavano only had 60 innings and Pelfrey pitched much more than that and equally as bad. Was it really that unreasonable to think Pelfrey would be little better than the combined efforts of Pavano, Walters, and Vasquez? I'd argue, based on historical evidence, we had plenty of reason to think that.

 

But the bigger issue is that the guys you are fingering as a problem in 2012 were STILL ON THE ROSTER for 2013! They weren't pushed all that far down the depth chart. They were till the first guys up when needed. So it wasn't unreasonable to suggest that given approximately the same roster with only questionably upgraded changes, we might be in for the same results. That was a reasonable expectation to have IMO.

 

hell, the only reason I wasn't in that camp was because I thought they might get a bit lucky. My mistake was that I didn't realize how lucky they may have been in 2012 that Diamond and Devries did what they did. That was mighty lucky and in retrospect it was that regression was key to why, even with better luck and consistency in 2013, they didn't improve much. Those two masked just how deep the problems were.

[diamondlars]

First off Duensing and Swarzak have started before and we all know they can pitch, so why sign kris johnsons, josh johnson, pelfreys, worleys, when you can work within the organization, would be much easier and cheaper finding middle releivers than it is excellent starting pitchers for low costs. Lets face it the Twins are a very cheap organization! Instead of spending $10 million for one starting pitcher hoping they will pan out, why not just make swarzak/duensing a starter and save that $10 million, for nothing. These starters are getting very Expensive!! Josh Johnson $8 million with a 2-8, with a 6.20, sorry to say, but I'd feel more confident in starting Scott Diamond, he had a better year than that!

 

Swarzak and Duensing were confronted end of last summer and asked if they could start, i remember that, and that led to know where. But come this spring the twins can have them adjust and work with them as starting pitcher instead of relievers. We were in disparate need for middle relievers last year, cause 5 out of 8 days we had to rely on the bullpen!

 

This year we can find time to replace the two starters we needed with Duensing/Swarzak or both, and have time to find new middle relievers to replace duensing/swarzak.

 

But what about all our back-up position players starting! Oh my!

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think you guys are saying the same thing.

 

No one here has said they were going to be good. We all thought they were going to be bad, but I think they were even worse than some of us were expecting -- including Steamer, as you've highlighted here.

 

Definitely not saying the same thing. Just looked at 2012 Steamer -- Twins starters were projected at 4.58 ERA that year. Actual ERA: 5.40. Steamer is more or less worthless for this exercise.

 

It might be more illuminating to look at a projection system like ZIPS, which offers projections at varying confidence intervals. I'd guess the Twins had virtually no chance of significant improvement simply due to the almost complete lack of upside.

 

The most charitable thing you could say is that in 2013 they were unlikely to be any worse than 2012, simply because they were already pushing the limits of statistical badness in 2012. However, them being almost exactly as bad was not an unlikely outcome -- in fact, given the thorough lack of upside throughout the entire starting staff, the low innings projections for even the top starters, and a nearly identical supporting cast of AAA fill-ins, I'd say that repeating the 2012 performance was probably the most likely outcome.

[jay]

Definitely not saying the same thing. Just looked at 2012 Steamer -- Twins starters were projected at 4.58 ERA that year. Actual ERA: 5.40. Steamer is more or less worthless for this exercise.

 

First Steamer is your source to make your point and now it is worthless?

 

However, them being almost exactly as bad was not an unlikely outcome -- in fact, given the thorough lack of upside throughout the entire starting staff, the low innings projections for even the top starters, and a nearly identical supporting cast of AAA fill-ins, I'd say that repeating the 2012 performance was probably the most likely outcome.

 

Either way, I don't even disagree with the sentiment in any of your points. When you look at the exact number of innings pitched by each starter in 2013 (using a high-end 5.80 for Albers since I couldn't find a projection for him), ZIPS projected a pretty darn close 5.15 vs the 5.26 actual.

 

I guess my only point would be that going in the season, I was expecting Diamond, Worley, Pelfrey, Deduno, and Correia with Gibson ready to step in for the weakest performer around June and some decent replacement level options beyond that if necessary. You could have projected that for around 4.90. Admittedly, before I ran the numbers just now, I would have thought the projection would be closer to 4.60 and bottom 5 in MLB than still MLB-worst. Those are both bad, but not quite the 5.26 bad that we had the joy of watching. All of those numbers do represent slight improvements over the 5.40 from 2012, but nothing we should be happy about in the least.

 

So, again, I still think we're saying the same thing and we're really splitting hairs here in any case. I guess we can agree to disagree on just what shade of really bad they were projected to be. I'll concede.

[TheLeviathan]

So, again, I still think we're saying the same thing and we're really splitting hairs here in any case. I guess we can agree to disagree on just what shade of really bad they were projected to be.

 

Agreed, I think most of us were in this camp. I just took umbrage when I heard "competent" being thrown around. I don't think it was unreasonable to disagree with that sort of projection.

[Kwak]

If I may contribute to the projected '13 projection vs '12 actual discussion....

 

My take is that the Twins and those who believed that '13 would be better than actual, are using the "incremental improvement approach" rather than a "step change improvement approach". Ergo, acquire three pitchers that collectively will be slightly better than those they replaced for a cost of $X vs. spend $X for one pitcher who is projected to be significantly better than the guy replaced. Much depends on what final outcome is desired, or--what is the definition of success? The incremental approach contains less risk, but lower "upside". Two star pitchers with average support can power a team through the playoffs, but five slightly above average pitchers will most likely suffer the same fate as the Twins in the previous decade. So which is to be preferred?--one great season (WS) or a few short appearances in the playoffs?

[Otto von Ballpark]

First Steamer is your source to make your point and now it is worthless?

 

Steamer was Hugh Morris' source, for his point that even "analytics" expected the Twins rotation to improve in 2013. I was disproving that and pointing out how Steamer was worthless for that judgment (or judgement, for you British types).

 

Agreed we're probably splitting hairs here.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I guess my only point would be that going in the season, I was expecting Diamond, Worley, Pelfrey, Deduno, and Correia with Gibson ready to step in for the weakest performer around June and some decent replacement level options beyond that if necessary. You could have projected that for around 4.90. Admittedly, before I ran the numbers just now, I would have thought the projection would be closer to 4.60 and bottom 5 in MLB than still MLB-worst.

 

The league's starting pitcher ERA last year was down to 4.15. Actually, the league starting ERA went down by more than the Twins ERA last year, so you could still make the argument they were worse in 2013. But that would be more hair splitting... and depressing...

[stringer bell]

On the larger issue of "same old, same old", I have to agree. There is a stockpile of great talent in the minors and if it pans out the Twins will have a couple of perennial all-stars. However, the parts that fit around that talent haven't been finalized, in fact the picture is more unclear than it was a year ago. I don't see anything that indicates that the team has changed direction in several areas. More later.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

To get away from statistical arguments for a moment... These Twins teams feel much worse than the sum of their parts. The 2011 roster loses 99 games are you kidding me? Now multiply by 3. "Yeah but injuries yeah but prospects…"

 

There's an intangible badness right now. That's part of why we see battle lines being drawn, why some people propose "fire the manager" (me) or "sign Pierzynski" (not me) or "rush the prospects up" or some other sexy but unquantifiable idea that the other side scoffs at. Or as Terry Ryan himself let it slip, "we've got to try something." Well one thing he can try, and we all pretty much agree, is he can somehow lure a top pitcher to come here, who by himself can win us some games, draw some fans back, maybe keep us around .500 going into the ASG, get that winning feeling back. Also it might create a nicer clubhouse atmosphere for the young whippersnappers to come into later in the year to save the day.

[stringer bell]

OK, I'm back. It seems that the front office hasn't figured how to go about getting better starting pitchers in this new (pitching dominated) sub-era, where strikeouts are reaching record numbers and pitching to contact has become the watch-word for guys who don't have enough stuff to consistently succeed. Finally, it seems the FO has shrugged off three straight failure seasons as part of a cycle. With the resources available, the drop-off shouldn't have been this deep and lasted this long. I really don't see much hope for improvement in 2014 and the culture of losing is becoming more and more the accepted atmosphere. I understand that the answers aren't as easy as opening the checkbook, but there is money to spend and I think the time for patience for the major league club should be over.

[jokin]

 

 

Or as Terry Ryan himself let it slip, "we've got to try something."

 

And people wonder why some of us get cynical about the recent state of affairs....

[jokin]

OK, I'm back. It seems that the front office hasn't figured how to go about getting better starting pitchers in this new (pitching dominated) sub-era, where strikeouts are reaching record numbers and pitching to contact has become the watch-word for guys who don't have enough stuff to consistently succeed. Finally, it seems the FO has shrugged off three straight failure seasons as part of a cycle. With the resources available, the drop-off shouldn't have been this deep and lasted this long. I really don't see much hope for improvement in 2014 and the culture of losing is becoming more and more the accepted atmosphere. I understand that the answers aren't as easy as opening the checkbook, but there is money to spend and I think the time for patience for the major league club should be over.

 

+1. Thanks for coming back! Excellent summation.

[John Bonnes]

Guys, just to save your hard-working mods some work, if you see a comment in questionable taste, please notify us rather than comment on it. Thanks.

[DaveW]

I didn't realize it was too soon to post a harmless Lee Harvey Oswald joke.

 

Also it wouldn't let me send a message back to you PM, so consider this my message.

 

People need to lighten up and have a sense of humor.